I've tried to be as careful as possible in my wording to avoid demonizing the poster. I still see absolutely nothing indicating maliciousness or ill intent and I would just as strongly disagree with anyone trying to do that. My apologies if I have come across as being hateful in any way.
I prefer to champion a web that goes back to a "hacker" culture I learned from in my youth that predates Internet culture: we believe DO owe each other something, somewhere in the positive gradient: basic decency, an assumption that we're all worthy of respect (unless proven otherwise), and that you never try to "score points" at the expense of someone else.
But that is just what I believe and what my preferences are. Certainly "do no harm" is the rock bottom line.
It’s a for-profit company without a bug bounty program, in no way whatsoever should they expect someone to work for free to fix issues they created.
The keys are public, they made them public. Do you expect that there are not automated systems trawling apps from the g-play store and doing what he’s doing?
That they are a for-profit company is completely irrelevant, as is whether or not they have a bug bounty program. Legal abstractions aside, it's still just people on both sides.
The expectation isn't that the poster work for free. The poster could have easily obscured identifying details and the content of his article would not be diminished. It is my opinion that if he wanted to "show his work", work done of his own initiative, then I think it would be more interesting and useful to include something about attempting to assist in remediation. I think, as mentioned by others, it would make a far stronger argument to click that "hire me!" button than anything in his technical analysis.
Of course automated systems are on the hunt for this stuff. Same with public code repositories, Docker images, and if you operate a subscription-based service with any popularity then your web interfaces for sign-up, login, etc will be subject to well-orchestrated brute force attacks. That someone did a poor job is all the more reason to avoid potentially contributing to their exploitation.
A response within the positive spectrum is absolutely above and beyond. Of all the feedback this community can provide, I think this is the most useful and I'm grateful that the poster has been responsive to it.
I've made money from selling exploits to companies. Ive also been cheated out and had bugs downrated so they could pay less. Ive also seen colleagues who reported bugs they inadvertently found get hit with a felony (found not guilty).
Frankly, this company should thank its lucky stars that the disclosure was an 0Day and not "sell this on dark web and have it exploited for 3mo from 1500 accounts and drain the company's coffers".
This person owes the company *nothing*. They found an exploit due to bad API implementation, and wrote about it publicly. If they were in the USA, that's completely in 1fa territory.
If I accidentally leave my door unlocked, and someone comes in and steals my TV, I'd be upset. I made an honest mistake, and had to pay for it when I wasn't expecting to.
If ..., and someone makes a blog post to tell the world that my door is unlocked, my dwelling may be in a permanent state of disrepair by the time I notice. I'd be incredibly unhappy.
Mischief doesn't need to cause misery.
And this goes back to the whole "responsible vulnerability disclosure". The damned white hats want to demonize anybody not reaching out to some opaque company and being told it might be fixed in 90-360 days.
0Days are JUST AS responsible as other types of disclosure. You owe them nothing, and they owe you nothing. And you're publishing info to everyone. Information symmetry.